1
IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT :: KARIMNAGAR
PRESENT:- SRI A. PRADEEP,
II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,
KARIMNAGAR
Tuesday, the 17th day of December, 2019
O.S.NO.138 OF 2012
Between: Bojja Anjaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Age: about 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Polampalli village of Thimmapur mandal of Karimnagar district. ...Plaintif.
And
1. Smt. Nune Laxmi, W/o. Bhoomaiah, Age: about 44 years, Occ:Housewife,
2. Bojja Kanukaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, Age: about 70 years, Occ: Agriculture,
3. Bojja Chandraiah, S/o. Ramaiah, Age: about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture,
All are R/o. Polampalli village of Thimmapur mandal of Karimnagar district.
...Defendants.
Claim:- Suit for Declaration of Title and Perpetual Injunction
This suit is coming on 06.11.2019 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri A. Prabhakar Sharma, Advocate for plaintif, and that of Sri P. Prabhakar Rao and Sri S. Narender, Advocates for defendants, having been heard and stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivered the following:-
: J U D G M E N T :
This is a suit fled for declaration of title and perpetual injunction, in respect of dry land in Sy.No.617 admeasuring Ac.0-03gts situated at
Polampalli village of Thimmapur mandal of Karimnagar district and declaration, declaring the registered sale deed, dated 17.09.2010 vide
Doc.No.4657/2010 as executed by the defendants No.2 and 3, in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of suit schedule land, under Sy.No.617, admeasuring 363 Sq.yards, situated at Polampalli village of Thimmapur mandal, Karimnagar district as all null and void, sham, nominal, bogus, fraudulent and not binding on the plaintif.
2.The averments of the plaint, in brief, are that:-
Originally, Bojja Mallaiah along with his own brother in law namely 1) 2
O.S.No.138/2012-IIAJCJ-cum-JMFC
Kumbam Pedda Kanakaiah and Kumbam Chinna Kanakaiah had jointly purchased land in Sy.No.617 admeasuring Ac.3-00gts through registered sale deed, dated 29.11.1979 vide Doc.No.5434/1979, Book No.1, volumn NO.467, pages 336 to 338, registered before Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar from its original pattadar, Sangem Venkata Buchi Narsamma. Immediately, by taking delivery of physical possession, in respect of above said land Bojja Mallaiah along with his brother-in-law had started to cultivate the above said land, by raising maize crop. While it was so, on their personal problem, 1) Kumbam
Pedda Kanakaiah and 2) Kumbam Chinna Kanakaiah had sold out their part of Ac.2-00gts land, in favour of Bojja Lasmamma and Bojja Pedda Kanakaiah for Ac.1-00gts each out of which, Bojja Lasmamma got purchased Ac.1-00gts land in Sy.No.617 from Kumbam Pedda Kanakaiah and Kumbam Chinna
Kanakaiah through registered sale deed, dated 03.09.1984 vide
Doc.No.3846/1984, Book No.1, Volume No.674, Pages 112 and 113, registered before sub-registrar, Karimnagar and on the same day, it was delivered in her favour. Thus, Bojja Mallaiah along with his wife Bojja
Lasmamma has become owner and possessor of land in Sy.No.617 to the extent of Ac.2-00gts.
3.While it was so, in the year 1989 Bojja Mallaiah along with his two brothers, namely Kanakaiah and Chandraiah got purchased land in the same
Sy.No.617, admeasuring Ac.2-22gts through a simple sale deed. In the meanwhile, the above said Ac.2-22gts land was equally divided among the brothers of Bojja Mallaiah. Due to which, each brother was allotted with Ac.0- 34gts on diferent places, diferent extents, such as Ac.0-14gts, Ac.0-17gts and Ac.0-03gts each. In accordance with the above said partition Bojja
Mallaiah along with his brothers had started to cultivate his part of land along with the earlier land as purchased by him and his wife Lasmamma. In total Bojja Mallaiah had cultivated Ac.2-34gts. To this efect, the revenue 3
O.S.No.138/2012-IIAJCJ-cum-JMFC
authorities had recorded the names of Bojja Mallaiah and his wife
Lasmamma, as pattadars and possessors to the extent of Ac.1-34gts and
Ac.1-00gts. While, it was so, on 30.07.2010, Bojja Mallaiah got partitioned the above said land among his three sons namely Bojja Anjaiah, Bojja
Thirupathi and Bojja Kumaraswamy as well as his wife, by which each son inclusive of plaintif has been allotted with Ac.0-31 ½ gts each, and his wife
Lasmamma was allotted with Ac.0-19 ½ gts. The plaintif has been allotted his part of Ac.0-31 ½ gts in diferent places at the extent of Ac.0-14 ½, Ac.0- 14gts and Ac.0-03gts.
Item No.1 Ac.0-14 ½ gts in Sy.No.617 bounded on the:
North: Land of Bojja Lasmaiah
East: Land of Bojja Pedda Kanukaiah
West: Land of Bojja Chandraiah
South: Ummanna Gutta
Item No.2 Ac.0-14gts in Sy.No.617 bounded on the:
North: Road
East: Land of Bojja Chandraiah
West: Land of Bojja Pedda Komuraiah
South: Ummanna Gutta
Item No.3 Ac.0-03gts in Sy.No.617 bounded on the:
North: Road
East: Land of Pappu Ailamma
West: Land of Bojja Pedda Kanakaiah
South: Land of Bojja Kankaiah and Bojja Chandraiah
As per the above oral partition and allotment of their respective shares, the plaintif by taking his part of share, as stated supra has started to cultivate his part of land without any interruption from any corner in
Sy.No.617. To this efect the revenue authorities got entered the name of plaintif as pattadar and possessors to the extent of Ac.0-34gts and for which they got issued passbook and title deed, in his favour.
4.While it was so, on 01.02.2012 it was coming to the notice of plaintif that, the defendant No.1 claimed to be purchased land from the defendants 4
O.S.No.138/2012-IIAJCJ-cum-JMFC
No.2 and 3 in Sy.No.617 to the extent of Ac.0-03gts out of his Ac.0-31 ½ gts, as allotted in his favour has tried dispossess him with the help of defendants
No.2 and 3 from the suit schedule property. However, the plaintif has resisted the illegal activities of the defendant No.1 to 3, with the help of neighbouring cultivators, who executed their timely help in his favour. But on the next day i.e., 04.02.2012 again the defendant had interfered into suit property, the plaintif has referred the matter before the village elders, with a request to stop the illegal activities of defendant No.1. However, the village elders had called upon the defendant No.1 and during their enquiry she has produced the xerox copy of sale deed, dated 17.09.2010, alleged to have been executed by defendants No.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.1. By which it was coming to the notice of plaintif that the defendants No.2 and 3, without any right or title whatsoever in nature has high handedly sold out the suit land, in favour of defendant No.1. As such the elders had advised the plaintif to approach civil court, for redressal of his grievance. However, on 09.02.2012, the plaintif got obtained certifed copy of pahanies as well as
CC of sale deed. By the CC of sale deed, it was confrmed that the defendant
No.1 got obtained illegal sale deed from the title less persons,like the defendant No.2 and 3. Hence, the suit.
5.The defendant No.1 fled her written statement by denying the averments of the plaint and submitted that, the defendant No.2 and 3 are owners of land covered by the sale deed cited above they have acquired title to sale deed covered property from their parents through registered gift settlement deed, those deed will be fled in due course, they have valid efective legal title and continuous possession to the Doc.No.4657/2000ss covered land, their names were recorded in the revenue records. Prior to sale to defendant No.1, hence the defendant No.2 and 3 sold the 363 Sq.yards in
Sy.No.617 of Polamapelli revenue village revenue mandal Thimmapur and 5
O.S.No.138/2012-IIAJCJ-cum-JMFC
delivered possession to this defendant No.1. It is submitted that the title is passed from parents of defendant No.2 and 3 and from them, the title again passed to this defendant No.1. This defendant No.1 has paid valid sale consideration for sale above Doc.No.4657/2000 covered property. Hence defendant No.1 is innocent purchaser and see protection under relevant law.
It is submitted that the defendant No.1 was in fnancial problem regarding some health problems of the her family. Hence, she proposed to sale to third parties. At this juncture the plaintif with coveted eye and eye sore, greadyness demanded amounts from the defendant No.1 while foregoing relationship when this defendant No.1 and her husband has refused to pay amount for illegal demand of money from the plaintif. This plaintif has fled this false suit to restrain the defendant from sale, created problems. The plaintif is in collusion with the enemies of this husband of this defendant
No.1 to restrain the sale of the property covered by the sale deed
Doc.No.4657/2000 has fled this false suit.
6.The defendant No.1 fled additional written statement stating that, plaintif land is at diferent place not located in the land of defendant No.1 covered by the registered sale deed Doc.No.4657/2010 dated 17.09.2010, hence the plaintif is not entitled for cancellation of sale deed
Doc.No.4657/2010 dated 17.09.2010, while declaring boundaries in the suit land. The suit boundaries as mentioned in annexure I, II and III are incorrect, which in contrary of boundaries as mentioned in Registered gift deed
Doc.No.4032/2010 dated 30.07.2010 and the plaintif has no land and the suit land boundaries are bad and misrepresentation and misleading the court. The written statement fled by the defendant No.2 and 2 is fled in collusion with plaintif to knock down the property of defendant No.1. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs against the defendant No.1.
6
O.S.No.138/2012-IIAJCJ-cum-JMFC
7.The defendant No.2 and 3 fled their written statement by submitting that, originally in the year 1989 the defendant No.2 and 3 along with Bojja
Mallaiah had jointly purchased Ac.2-22gts land in Sy.No.617, situated at
Polampelli village of Thimmapur mandal, Karimnagar district, through simple sale deed. In the meanwhile, all the three brothers got divided the above said land in equal shares to the extent of Ac.0-34gts land and the same was allotted at diferent places, with diferent extents, such as Ac.0-14gts, Ac.0- 07gts and Ac.0-03gts each, by taking into consideration of fertility of the land. It is true that, the land was allotted as shown in the annexure I to III, as enclosed to the plaint. After the above said partition all the brothers have started to cultivate their part of Ac.0-34gts in diferent places, as stated supra. As Bojja Mallaiah has already as Ac.2-00gts land, which inclusive of
Ac.1-00gts of his own and Ac.1-00gts of his wife and Ac.0-34gts as allotted in the above partition in total Ac.2-34gts has started to cultivate, the same without any interruption, from any corner. To this efect, the revenue authorities have recorded the names of Bojja Mallaiah and his wife, Bojja
Lasmamma, to the extent of Ac.1-34gts and Ac.1-00gts respectively, as pattedars and possessors, in the pahanies. While it was so, on 30.07.2010
Bojja Mallaiah got divided the above said land among his three sons, namely
Bojja Anjaiah, Bojja Thirupathi and Bojja Kumaraswamy as well as his wife,
Bojja Lasmamma. Due to which, each son was allotted Ac.0-31 ½ gts each at diferent places, whereas Lasmamma was allotted only with Ac.0-19 ½ gts, at single place. Due to which, the plaintif was allotted his part of Ac.0-31 ½ gts at diferent places, to the extent of Ac.0-14 ½ gts, Ac.0-14 and Ac.0-03gts, totaling Ac.0-31 ½ gts at diferent places. The Ac.0-03gts of suit land, in
Sy.No.617 is allotted in favour of plaintif, by
North: Road
East: Land of Pappu Ailamma
West: Land of Bojja Kanakaiah
South: Land of Bojja Kanakaiah and Bojja Chandraiah 7
O.S.No.138/2012-IIAJCJ-cum-JMFC
Whereas the defendant No.3 has been allotted his part of Ac.0-03gts of land, in Sy.No.617 with the following boundaries:
North: Land of Bojja Mallaiah
East: Land of Bojja Chandraiah
West: Land of Bojja Kanakaiah
South: Land of Bojja Kanakaiah and Chandraiah
8.However, the same has been in joint possession of defendants No.2 and 3 hereunder to meet the domestic necessities, the defendants No.2 and 3 have sold away their land in favour of defendant No.1 through registered sale deed dated 17.09.2010 and put her in possession of the land within the boundaries, as stated supra. To the surprise and shock of defendants No.2 and 3, while the defendant No.1 was preparing the sale deed, instead of showing the boundaries as stated supra, the defendant No.1, by taking undue advantage of the illiteracy of defendant No.2 and 3, got shown the boundaries of Ac.0-03gts of land belonging to the plaintif, for which, they never assented. As on the spot, the defendant No.1 has been in possession of Ac.0-03gts of land, as belonging to defendants No.2 and 3, they did not notice mischievous acts of defendant No.1. However, on 04.02.2012, it was coming to the notice of defendants No.2 and 3, when a panchayat was held between the plaintif and defendant No.1 in the presence of community elders, in whose presence, she produced the xerox copy of sale deed, wherein the boundaries of plaintifs land was shown, for which they were shocked. As such, the defendants No.2 and 3 had asked the defendant No.1 to come to ofce of Sub-Registrar, to correct the boundaries, as per the item
No.2 of annexure III but she did not come to the ofce of Sub-Registrar, in enabling them to execute rectifcation deed, for rectifcation of the wrong boundaries, as shown in the sale deed. It appears that, the defendant No.1 is intended to grab the land of plaintif, as such, she did not agreed for the same. Due to which, the defendants No.2 and 3 have put a proposal to return 8
O.S.No.138/2012-IIAJCJ-cum-JMFC
the sale consideration amount, for which, the defendant No.1 did not agree for the same. As the defendants No.2 and3 have no any right in the boundaries of Ac.0-03gts of land, as shown in registered sale deed dated 17.09.2010, it is liable to be rectifed or else cancelled. It appears that, the defendant No.1 with evil design to grab the land of plaintif, got shown his boundaries, for which she is liable to be punished under sections 465, 468, 469 and 420 IPC. The defendant No.2 and 3 are deserved their right to prosecute the defendant No.1. Hence, they prayed for decreeing of the suit in favour of plaintif.
9.On the basis of above pleadings the following issues were framed.
1. Whether the plaintif is entitled for declaration that he is the owner and possessor of suit land as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintif is entitled for a declaration that the
registered sale deed bearing document No.4657/2010 dated
17.09.2010 is null and void and not binding on the plaintif?
3. Whether the plaintif is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?
4. To what relief?
10.During the course of trial, the plaintif himself was examined as P.W1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A18 towards documentary evidence and one
Dayyala Sampath was examined as PW2. On behalf of defendants, the defendant No.1 herself was examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B12 towards documentary evidence, one Sri Nune Bhoomaiah was examined as
DW2 and Pappu Komuraiah was examined as DW3.
11.Heard both sides and perused the entire record. The learned counsel for the plaintif submitted that, the defendant No.2 and 3 admitted entire pleadings of the plaint in their written statement and if at all, the assertion of the plaintif in his pleadings is not true, the defendant No.2 and 3 would not have admitted the pleadings. Further, if it was a original partition among the plaintif and his brothers, there is no document to prove emphatically the allotment of shares given to plaintif and his brothers at three diferent 9
O.S.No.138/2012-IIAJCJ-cum-JMFC
places each in the suit survey number. Further, submitted that, the defendant No.1 being wife of PW2 was unable to give the survey number and extent of land purchased by her and thrown entire burden on her husband to speak about the details and particulars of the property, that was purchased by her and PW2 also admitted in his cross examination that, the father of plaintif and his wife purchased Ac.2-00gts of land in Sy.No.617 and that, after some time the father of plaintif along with his brothers purchased an extent of Ac.2-22gts in suit survey number 617, further submitted that, PW2 also admitted that, the property purchased by father of plaintif along with his brothers was divided among them and each got Ac.0-34gts and the father of plaintif became owner to an extent of Ac.1-34gts in total, while mother of plaintif became owner to an extent of Ac.1-00gt of land in suit survey number, thus, the parents of plaintif herein are the owners and possessors of Ac.2-34gts and in the family partition among plaintifss mother and brothers, an extent of Ac.0-31 ½ gts each were allotted to the plaintif and his brothers, whereas only Ac.0-19 ½ gts was allotted to the share of mother of plaintif. The learned counsel for the plaintif submitted that, in view of the admissions made by defendant No.2 and 3 and PW2, there is not doubt to say that the plaintif is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, for which he is entitled for the reliefs sought. On the other side, the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that, the land of plaintif is diferent and is not located at three diferent places, as alleged by the plaintif but the land allotted to the plaintif in the family partition is a single compact block and the boundaries as shown by the plaintif in annexure 1 to 3 are false and imaginary and the defendant No.1 purchased her property from the defendant No.2 and 3 but the plaintif in collusion with defendant
No.2 and 3 and with a coveted eye is trying to grab the land of plaintif, who purchased the same with her hard earned money. Further submitted that, the vendor of defendant No.1 is having perfect title and ownership over the 10
O.S.No.138/2012-IIAJCJ-cum-JMFC
property purchased by defendant No.1 and executed registered sale deed for a valid consideration and delivered possession and the plaintif, who is noway concerned with the property purchased by defendant No.1 hatched a plan to grab the land of defendant No.1, when the husband of defendant
No.1 refused to arrange an amount of Rs.70,000/- to the brother of plaintif herein for Sarpanch Elections, therefore, there is no truth in the version of the plaintif and the plaintif did not discharge his burden of proving the facts alleged by him, as such he is not entitled for the suit reliefs.
12.ISSUE NO.1:-
Whether the plaintif is entitled for declaration that he is the
owner and possessor of suit land as prayed for?
The plaintif fled the present suit seeking a relief of declaration of title over the suit schedule property i.e., Ac.0-03gts equivalent to 363Sq.yards out of Sy.No.617 situated at Polampalli village. It is the averments of the plaint that, the plaintif has been allotted his part of Ac.0-31 ½ gts in diferent places at an extent of Ac.0-14 ½ gts, Ac.0-14gts and Ac.0-03gts respectively. According to section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, there is burden upon the plaintif to establish and prove that, his land is scattered at three diferent places. The plaintif got himself examined as Pw1 and reiterated the contents of plaint pleadings in his chief examination through afdavit and exhibited documents Ex.A1 to A18. Ex.A1 shows that, one Kumbam Pedda
Kanakaiah, Kumbam Chinna Kanakaiah and Bojja Mallaiah i.e., father of plaintif purchased an extent of Ac.3-00gts of land from Sangam Venkata
Buchi Narsamma on 29.11.1979. Ex.A1 is inaccordance with the pleading of the plaint that, the above said three persons purchased the above said land from Sangam Venkata Buchi Narsamma. Ex.A2 shows that, Kumbam
Kanakaiah executed a registered sale deed on 03.09.1984 in favour of Bojja
Lasamma i.e., mother of plaintif to an extent of Ac.1-00gts in Sy.No.617 of
Polampalli village, this document under Ex.A2 also substantiate the pleading 11
O.S.No.138/2012-IIAJCJ-cum-JMFC
of the plaintif, that his mother purchased Ac.1-00gt of land from Kumbam
Kanakaiah. Ex.A17 and A18 are the pattadar passbook and title deed of the plaintif, in which it is recorded that, the plaintif is pattadar and title holder for an extent of Ac.0-31 ½ gts out of Sy.No.617of Polampalli village. Ex.A4 to
A16 are the certifed copies of pahanies from the year 1998-99 to 2010-11.
The pahani for the year 1998-99 shows the name of father of plaintif as pattadar and possessor to an extent of Ac.1-00gts and name of mother of plaintif as pattadar and possessor for an extent of Ac.1-00gts of land. The said extents of land were recorded upto 2000-01 and from the year 2001-02 the extent of land against the name of father of plaintif was increased to
Ac.1-34gts in the same survey number and said entries continued upto 2009- 10 and the pahani under Ex.A16 refect that, an extent of Ac.0-31 ½ gts each is recorded in the names of plaintif and his brothers, Bojja Thirupathi and
Bojja Kumaraswamy to this extent the documents under Ex.A1, A2 and A4 to
A18 support the version pleaded by plaintif. The oral evidence available on record shows that, there is no dispute with regard to the title and ownership of the parents of the plaintif over an extent of Ac.2-34gts in Sy.No.617 of
Polampalli village but the dispute is that, the plaintif was allotted land measuring Ac.0-31 ½ gts by way of execution of gift deed (Ex.B1) by his parents, wherein common boundaries are shown for the entire land measuring Ac.0-31 ½ gts but the plaintif intentionally to cause loss to the defendant No.1 and also to knock away the property purchased by the defendant No.1 taken inconsistent pleas without documentary evidence to show that, there was family partition and the lands subjected to partition were scattered at diferent places.
13.The documents as exhibited by plaintif and conjoint reading of the pleading with the contents of the documents, it is vividly clear that, the parents of the plaintif are the original pattadars and possessors of land measuring Ac.2-34gts in Sy.No.617. The defendant No.2 and 3 admit the 12
O.S.No.138/2012-IIAJCJ-cum-JMFC
same in their written statement, and DW2 admitted the same in his cross examination. But the contention of defendant No.1 and her husband DW2 is that, the property allotted to plaintif measuring Ac.0-31 ½ gts is a single compact block and it is not scattered at three diferent places as alleged by the plaintif. Against to the contention of DW2, he admitted in his cross examination that, the father of plaintif divided his Ac.1-34gts of land and
Ac.1-00gts land of mother of plaintif, totally measuring Ac.2-34gts among his three sons and wife and in that family partition each son got Ac.0-31 ½ gts of land. As such, there is no doubt that, the plaintif is the pattadar and possessor to an extent of Ac.0-31 ½ gts in Sy.No.617. Ex.A3 is the document, which the plaintif herein seeks for declaring it as null and void and not binding on him. On perusal of the boundaries, the boundaries as mentioned by the plaintif in his plaint for the Ac.0-03gts of land in Sy.No.617 and the boundaries as mentioned under Ex.A3 are one and the same. The defendant
No.2 and 3 pleaded in their written statement that, they have executed registered sale deed dated 17.09.2010 in favour of defendant No.1 with the boundaries i.e., North: Land of Bojja Mallaiah, East: Land of Bojja Chandraiah,
West: Land of Bojja Kanakaiah and South: Land of Bojja Kanakaiah and
Chandraiah but to their surprise and shock found that, at the time of preparing the sale deed, instead of showing the boundaries as stated supra, the defendant No.1 by taking undue advantage of the illiteracy of the defendant No.2 and 3 shown the boundaries of plaintifss land. Therefore, the crux of the dispute lies with the location i.e., allotment of land to the plaintif at three diferent places measuring Ac.0-14gts, Ac.0-14 ½ gts and Ac.0-03gts respectively.
14.It is the plaintif, who as to prove the above said contentions, the plaintif did not fle documentary proof but to establish the same, he got examined Dayyala Sampath as PW2 and in the chief examination through afdavit, the PW2 supported the entire version of plaintif. The PW2 13
O.S.No.138/2012-IIAJCJ-cum-JMFC
mentioned the boundaries of Ac.0-03gts in his chief afdavit as well as in his cross examination in the following manner East: Pappu Ilamma, West: Land of Bojja Pedda Kanakaiah, North: Road and South: Land of Chandraiah and
Kanakaiah. The said PW2 admitted in his cross examination that, Ex.B1 was executed by the parents of plaintif by gifting Ac.0-31 ½ gts to the plaintif herein on 30.07.2010. On perusal of the recitals and boundaries of Ex.B1, it is found that, only four boundaries i.e., on east, west, north and south are mentioned for the entire land of Ac.0-31 ½ gts as if the said land is single compact block. Further, the plaintif on one hand says that, the property was partitioned among his brothers and mother and on the other hand, the document under Ex.B1 refect the contradictory facts as the parents of plaintif executed gift settlement deed, in addition to that, the pattadar passbook and title deed of the plaintif also shows that, the Ac.0-31 ½ gts is a single compact block. Further, though the defendant No.2 and 3 fled their written statement in favour of the plaintif but did not participate in the proceedings nor examined themselves as witnesses to prove their allegation that, taking their illiteracy as advantage, the defendant No.1 got herself prepared the sale deed to grab the land of plaintif. The contention of the defendant No.1 is that, the property of the plaintif is a compact block and no oral partition has taken place at any time between the family members of the plaintif and such allegations are false and created for the purpose of this suit and her purchased land under Ex.A3 is diferent from that of plaintif land. However, by perusing the documents under Ex.A3 which is the document executed in favour of defendant No.1 and Ex.B1 which is the gift settlement deed executed in favour of plaintif shows that, both the deeds are executed in respect of same property with same boundaries. Another point to be considered is that, Ex.A3 was executed on 17.09.2010, whereas
Ex.B1 was executed on 30.07.2010, which means that, the Ex.B1 was executed prior to execution of Ex.A3. Apart from that, the defendant No.2 14
O.S.No.138/2012-IIAJCJ-cum-JMFC
and 3 who are the executors of Ex.A3 have conducted in their written statement that, by taking their illiteracy as advantage the defendant No.1 herein got mentioned the boundaries of the property of plaintif, therefore from the categorical admission of defendant No.2 and 3, who are the vendors of defendant No.1, it is crystal clear that, the defendant No.1 got mentioned wrong boundaries in order to claim the property of plaintif herein. Hence, the plaintif is entitled for declaration of title against the defendant No.1, accordingly the issue is answered in favour of plaintif.
15.ISSUE NO.2:-
Whether the plaintif is entitled for a declaration that the
registered sale deed bearing document No.4657/2010 dated
17.09.2010 is null and void and not binding on the plaintif?
As already stated supra in the issue No.1, the plaintif and defendant
No.2 and 3 denied the right of the defendant No.1 over the specifed suit schedule property within the specifed boundaries under plaint schedule and the defendant No.2 and 3, though admitted the execution of Ex.A3 in favour of defendant No.1, they have stated that, the defendant No.1 and her husband taken the advantage of their illiteracy and got modifed the boundaries without their knowledge and so as to grab the land of plaintif, they have introduced boundaries as mentioned under Ex.A3 i.e., document bearing No.4657/2010 dated 17.09.2010. As per the material available on record, the plaintif also admitted the ownership and possession of defendant
No.2 and 3 over the land in Sy.No.617, even the plaintif during cross examination admitted the execution of Ex.A3 in favour of defendant No.1 but the boundaries of the land mentioned under Ex.A3 is denied by the defendant No.2 and 3, who are the executants of Ex.A3. Hence, this issue
No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintif.
15
O.S.No.138/2012-IIAJCJ-cum-JMFC
16.ISSUE NO.3:-
Whether the plaintif is entitled for the relief of perpetual
injunction as prayed for?
It was come on record that, the plaintif by mortgaging the suit property with LSCSS Limited, Gattududhenapalli obtained loan and the defendant No.1 also admits that, the property of the plaintif was mortgaged, which means that the plaintif is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of fling of the suit. Further, it has come on record that, there was a panchayath between plaintif and defendant No.1 before their village elders. Dw2 in his cross examination admitted that, a panchayath was held regarding the suit schedule property between plaintif and defendants, in view of the said admissions there is nothing more required to say that, the defendants interfered with the possession of plaintif, therefore the plaintif is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction. Accordingly, issue No.3 is answered in favour of the plaintif.
17.ISSUE NO.4:-To what relief?
In view of the fndings given in issue No.1 to 3, the plaintif is declared as the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and he is entitled for declaration that the registered sale deed bearing document
No.4657/2010 dated 17.09.2010 is null and void and not binding on the plaintif and perpetual injunction against the defendant No.1.
IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed and the parties shall bear their own costs.
Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of December, 2019.
II Addl.J.C.J-cum-Judl.Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFFSFOR DEFENDANTS
PW1- B. AnjaiahDW1- N. Laxmi PW2- D. SampathDW2- N. Bhoomaiah 16
O.S.No.138/2012-IIAJCJ-cum-JMFC
DW3- P. Komuraiah
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1 is the original registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.5434/1979, dated 29.11.1979. Ex.A2 is the CC of registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.3846/1984 dated 03.09.1984 Ex.A3 is the CC of registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.4657/2010, dated 17.09.2010 Ex.A4 is the CC of pahani for the year 1998-99 Ex.A5 is the CC of pahani for the year 1999-2000 Ex.A6 is the CC of pahani for the year 2000-01 Ex.A7 is the CC of pahani for the year 2001-02 Ex.A8 is the CC of pahani for the year 2002-03 Ex.A9 is the CC of pahani for the year 2003-04 Ex.A10 is the CC of pahani for the year 2004-05 Ex.A11 is the CC of pahani for the year 2005-06 Ex.A12 is the CC of pahani for the year 2006-07 Ex.A13 is the CC of pahani for the year 2007-08 Ex.A14 is the CC of pahani for the year 2008-09 Ex.A15 is the CC of pahani for the year 2009-10 Ex.A16 is the copy of pahani for the year 2010-11 issued by VRO, Thimmapur mandal. Ex.A17 is the original pattedar passbook of plaintif Ex.A18 is the original title deed of plaintif
FOR DEFENDANT: Ex.B1 is the CC of gift settlement deed bearing Doc.No.4032/2010 dated 30.07.2010 executed by Bojja Mallaiah and another in favour of Bojja Anjaiah. Ex.B2 is the CC of registered sale deed vide Doc.No.4657/2010, dated 17.09.2010 executed by Bojja Kanakaiah and another in favour of Noone Laxmi. Ex.B3 is the CC of gift settlement deed bearing Doc.No.4030/2010, dated 30.07.2010 executed by Bojja Mallaiah in favour of Bojja Thirupathi. Ex.B4 is the CC of registered sale deed vide Doc.No.298/2011, dated 11.01.2011 executed by Bojja Anjaiah in favour of Gunti Thirupathi. Ex.B5 is the CC of registered sale deed vide Doc.No.4130/2014, dated 01.12.2014 executed by Bojja Anjaiah in favour of Padala Renuka. Ex.B6 is the CC of registered sale deed vide Doc.No.617/2007, dated 03.12.2007 executed by Bojja Chandraiah in favour of Jangiri Vani. Ex.B7 is the CC of gift settlement deed vide Doc.No.4031/2010, dated 30.07.2010 executed by Bojja Mallaiah in favour of Bojja Kumaraswamy. Ex.B8 is the CC of registered sale deed vide Doc.No.4656/2010, dated 17.09.2010 executed by Bojja Chandraiah in favour of Pappa Ilamma. Ex.B9 is the CC of computerized pahani for the fasli year 1426, obtained through Mee-seva. Ex.B10 is the original mutation proceedings vide Proc.No.B/56/2017, dated 13.02.2017. Ex.B11 is the CC of mortgage vide Doc.No.2676/2016. Ex.B12 is the Encumbrance Certifcate obtained from ofce of Sub-Registrar, Thimmapoor, dated 25.01.2017 vide statement No.21461033.
II Addl.J.C.J-cum-Judl.Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar